MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018517026 · doi:10.1063/1.3354947

Force field of para- and metabenzyne diradicals: A multireference coupled-cluster study

2010· article· en· W2018517026 on OpenAlexaff
Xiangzhu Li, Josef Paldus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupled clusterWave functionMultireference configuration interactionChemistryAtomic orbitalAtomic physicsField (mathematics)Singlet stateConfiguration interactionComputational chemistryPhysicsQuantum mechanicsMoleculeExcited stateMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduced multireference (RMR) coupled-cluster (CC) method with singles and doubles (RMR CCSD) that exploits a modest size MR CISD wave function as an external source for a small subset of the most important (primary) triples and quadruples to account for quasidegeneracy due to a MR nature of the states considered, as well as its RMR CCSD(T) version corrected for the secondary triples, are employed to compute fundamental vibrational frequencies for the para- and metabenzene diradicals. A comparison is made with the available experimental data and with other methods, namely, the state selective or Mukherjee CCSD and completely renormalized, size-extensive version of CCSD(T), the so-called CR-CC(2,3), methods. Both the restricted Hartree-Fock and multiconfiguration self-consistent-field (MCSCF) molecular orbitals (MOs) are employed. The four-reference RMR CCSD using MCSCF MOs gives particularly satisfactory results. The breakdown of CCSD(T) and shortcomings of some other approaches are pointed out and the role of invariance with respect to MO rotation is analyzed. Correlation with triplet-singlet splittings is also pointed out.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207